1Today Simon FitzMary is perhaps best remembered as the founder, in October 1247, of a religious house dedicated to St Mary of Bethlehem that developed into the notorious Bedlam Hospital1. To his contemporaries, however, Simon was a notable and controversial civic politician2. Compared to many of his colleagues in the civic government, Simon’s life is exceptionally well documented, and he has featured prominently in two recent studies3. In the course of their research, historians have identified surviving impressions of a number of Simon’s seals4. Seals offer valuable evidence to historians of medieval London, as Sylvia Thrupp’s important study of the city’s mercantile elite in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries suggests5. Although large numbers of seals survive from thirteenth-century London, scholars of this period have yet to follow Thrupp’s lead and engage with them systematically6. The case of Simon FitzMary reflects this general limitation in the current scholarship: historians have not fully exploited his seals. In this paper, Simons seals will be set in the context of the documentary evidence that historians have gathered, as well as that of the seals of his colleagues in the civic government7. This approach will draw attention to the profitable interaction between the visual evidence of seals and the written records and demonstrate its potential to further our understanding of Londons civic elite, both collectively and as individuals.

2During the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, the Crown gradually allowed the Londoners to extend their powers of self-government8. By the mid-thirteenth century, the civic government had been greatly strengthened, for it assumed much of the responsibility for organizing and administering the city on behalf of the citizens. The government was dominated by a small group of men who held the offices of mayor, sheriff, and alderman9. At the top of the hierarchy was the mayor, who was elected annually but often served several successive terms10. He was at once a personification of the political community and an authority figure who presided over his fellow citizens. He acted in concert with the two sheriffs of London, who had financial, administrative and judicial duties. From 1230 they served for one year, although they were permitted multiple terms provided the terms were not consecutive11. The mayor and sheriffs were supported by the aldermen who each took responsibility for one of the city’s wards.

3The power of the civic government and its officers was expressed visually in a variety of ways. The meeting place of the civic government was an impressive stone structure which ranked as one of the largest secular buildings in England when it was built in the twelfth century12. The city’s seal, which is first mentioned in the early thirteenth century, has been described as “one of the outstanding civic seals of medieval Europe”13. The first civic official to gain a seal of office, however, was the mayor c. 1277-127814. Thus historians cannot turn to seals of office to study the high civic officers of the first half of the thirteenth century. Nevertheless, the personal seals of the men who held the high civic offices have much to offer historians. The personal power and prestige of these men was closely intertwined with that of their offices, especially in the case of the aldermen. Wards were commonly known by the names of their aldermen until the end of the thirteenth century when they acquired fixed topographical names15. The men who served as aldermen, c. 1200, were sometimes known by the surname “alderman”16. Aldermen were each expected to have a banner to rally the men of their districts in times of war; Goodall suggests that these banners were decorated with the personal emblems of the aldermen17. Moreover, when an alderman was asked to use a seal in his capacity as alderman, he appear to have used his personal seal18. The personal seals of the men who held the high civic offices, therefore, were statements of identity used by men whose personal identities were not clearly differentiated from the offices they held.

4Thanks to the work of several generations of scholars, historians now have lists of the men who held the high civic offices from the late twelfth century onwards19. When two parties exchanged land in thirteenth-century London, they customarily had the transaction recorded in writing and validated with seals20. As the men who held the high civic offices were often exceptionally wealthy and held large amounts of property, they tended to be involved in relatively large numbers of transactions during their lifetimes21. The greater the number of documents produced, the more likely it is that one will survive and preserve an impression of a seal. By cross-referencing the lists of officers against the catalogues of deeds available in archives, documents recording transactions to which the high civic officers were parties can be identified. For the purposes of this paper, the collections of the Guildhall Library, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, the London Metropolitan Archive, and the National Archive were surveyed22. Only a minority of documents retain their seals, but a significant number of personal seals used by men who served in the high civic offices can be identified. From this evidence, historians can draw conclusions concerning the characteristics and functions of the personal seals of the high civic officers.

5At the beginning of the thirteenth century the highest nobility in England continued to use equestrian seals, but men of lesser – but still distinguished – social status began to favour shields of arms instead23. In the early thirteenth century the most prominent men in London also began to abandon the use of equestrian seals. The city’s first mayor, Henry FitzAilwin, who served from c. 1190 to 1212, used an equestrian seal featuring a man hawking24. Ralph Steperanc, an early thirteenth-century London alderman, had an equestrian seal displaying an armoured man on horseback25. There is little evidence for the use of equestrian seals by high civic officers, however, after the early thirteenth century26. Instead high civic officers appear to have favoured heraldic seals, ancient gems and seals displaying images of animals27. The study of the seals of London’s high civic officers is still in its initial stages, but their personal seals may have been more iconographically and epigraphically diverse than those of upper-class laymen in England generally. Before setting the seals of Simon FitzMary in the context of the seals of his colleagues, it is important to consider briefly the evidence for his social status and political career.

6Simon was probably born between 1200 and 121028. A land transaction confirms that he had a father who was known in London as Walter of Fulham. Walter’s surname suggests that he was an immigrant to London29. A survey of the records reveals that in the early thirteenth century a “Walter of Fulham” witnessed land transactions in the parishes of St. Margaret Fish Street, St. Magnus the Martyr, St. Mary at Hill and St. Botolph Billingsgate30. As this Walter of Fulham was active in the right period and his role as a witness indicates that he was a man of some importance, there is a strong possibility that he was Simon’s father. Walter disappears from the records in the 1220s, and Simon emerges in the mid-1230s as a prominent civic leader31.

7Simon is recorded holding a number of important public offices, and he must have enjoyed considerable royal favour. As King’s Chamberlain in 1233-1234, he held an office controlled by the Crown that involved important financial responsibilities32. However he also had both supporters and critics within the civic community. Simon was elected sheriff of London in 1233-1234. Partway through his term as sheriff, he was deposed. This was an exceptional event probably instigated by the mayor, Andrew Buckerel, who may not have found Simon sufficiently submissive33. Nevertheless, Simon secured the office of alderman c. 123734. In 1238-1239 Simon caused another crisis when he appeared at the annual elections of the sheriffs with letters from the Crown that directed the civic leaders to elect him35. When the mayor, William Joiner, refused to allow King Henry III to determine the outcome of the election, Henry deposed him and for several months the city had to function without a mayor. Simon’s civic political career came to abrupt end in 1248-1249. In this period a widow of a London alderman disputed the manner in which the civic authorities had adjudicated the settlement of her husband’s estate. The lawsuit raised questions about the civic government’s jurisdiction and when the king became involved he used the case as a pretext to interfere in civic affairs36. As Simon gave support to the widow, his enemies in the civic government accused him of betraying the City. The mayor, Michael Tovy, then took the unusual step of deposing Simon from the office of alderman. The election of Simon’s successor was held in March 1249 but was organized in such a rush that the winning candidate, Alexander le Ferrun, was not in attendance at the meeting and had to be sworn in at a later date37. This suggests that Tovy was worried that Simon might find means, perhaps through royal favour, to recover his office38. Expelled from office, Simon appears to have made no further contribution to civic political life39.

8His contemporary, the alderman and chronicler Arnald FitzThedmar, held him in low regard because of Simon’s willingness to lead opposition to the mayor and to look to the Crown for support. While it is largely due to FitzThedmar that so much is known about Simon’s political career, he is a hostile witness. FitzThedmar portrays Simon as a man who pursued personal power in opposition to the collective interests of his fellow citizens and his colleagues on the aldermanic council. Simon, we can imagine, might have told a different story. Unfortunately, there are no alternative narrative sources for these events, but there is some evidence for how Simon himself hoped to be perceived within the civic community. In addition to the deed recording his foundation of St Mary of Bethlehem, historians can turn to Simon’s seals.

9During his lifetime, Simon FitzMary used at least three distinct personal seals, which will be labelled A, B, and C, for the purposes of this study (ill. 1-3). Single impressions of both seals A and B are preserved in Londons Guildhall Library40. Impressions of seal C can be found in the Guildhall Library, the archive of St Bartholomew’s Hospital and the National Archive41. Seal A has been overlooked by scholars, perhaps because the legend on the seal reads: + s simonis fil walteri (“Seal of Simon son of Walter”). No document has yet been discovered that records Simon with this alias. Nevertheless, the seal can be confidently assigned to Simon. The text of the charter to which the seal is attached states that the agreement is between “Simon son of Mary” and “William Gray”. The legend on the seal rules out the possibility that William owned the seal; Simon, however, had a father named Walter42. Moreover, the boar’s head device on the seal was also used by Simon on seal B, for which there are no problems of attribution. Thus, it appears that seal A was owned by Simon and that its legend preserves a variant of Simon’s surname. The unusual form of Simon’s surname on seal A suggests that it might be the earliest of the seals. The document to which seal A is attached, however, can only be assigned to the period: c. 1231-124143. Seal B, by contrast, was in use in 1243-1244, and seal C is on documents dated c. 1226-1247, 1243-1244 and c. 124544. Given the small number of surviving impressions, the order in which Simon acquired his seals and the periods when they were in use are uncertain. Simon, however, was using B and C later in his career when he was prominent in political life. Moreover, B and C must have been in use at the same time, as they survive in a double-sided impression.

10At 34x28mm, seal A is the largest seal Simon is known to have used (ill. 1). The seal is scutiform, with the legend wrapped around the exterior and separated from the image at the centre by a raised band decorated with six stemmed cones45. The main image is a boar. The animal, of which only the head is depicted, is in profile and facing to the left. In seal B Simon used the same device, although the shape and size of the seal is different (ill. 2). Seal B is round and 17mm in diameter. The animal is again depicted in profile but facing to the right. There are sharp teeth in the mouth and just behind the creature’s upturned snout is the suggestion of two tusks. The legend reads: + s’si: filii marie (“Seal of Simon son of Mary”). Simon’s seal C is a pointed oval 24x18mm (ill. 3). The legend reads: do pro li proprie: te simon nate marie (“I, Simon born of Mary, give you for him personally”). The main image is a representation of the Virgin and Child enthroned beneath a canopy. In the bottom left of the image field is a kneeling man. He is in profile, facing to the right. His body is defined by long horizontal bands of folded drapery and his arms are outstretched in a gesture of prayer, with his joined hands crossing in front of the Virgin in a position just before the child.

11Simon was not the first high civic officer to use an armorial seal, the boar’s head device, a pointed oval seal, or a representation of the Virgin Mary. Seal A, for example, can be compared to the seal of Alan FitzPeter, who served as an alderman at the beginning of the thirteenth century (ill. 4)46. A significant number of Simon successors’in the civic government also incorporated shields of arms into their seals47. Although animals regularly appear on the seals of London’s ruling elite, the boar’s head device, which Simon uses on both seals A and B, is less common48. Hamo Brand, sheriff 1203-1204, used the head of an animal (probably a boar) together with a sword, surrounded by decorative foliage49. There were also precedents for pointed oval seals and representations of the Virgin Mary. Simon’s colleagues most commonly used round seals, but throughout the thirteenth century there are examples of men using pointed ovals50. Nor was Simon’s seal bearing an image of the Virgin an original choice. Roger le Duc, who served as sheriff 1225-1227 and as mayor 1227-1231, and was thus in the forefront of civic politics in the period immediately before Simon FitzMary secured the office of sheriff, used a pointed oval seal with a complex design. The seal is significantly larger than Simon’s seal C and it is divided into two registers51. In the upper section is the Virgin accompanied by a kneeling man of smaller scale. Nicholas Fitzjoce, who served as sheriff after Simon had been expelled from office, had an ancient gem set in a rounded oval seal that depicted a seated women holding a child on her lap52. The seal might well have been interpreted from a Christian perspective by contemporaries and regarded as a Virgin and Child53. Simon, therefore, chose seals whose images and forms were within the bounds of established convention.

12Simon FitzMary is the only example yet identified of a high civic officer who owned three seals. Further research, however, may reveal additional cases. The possession of multiple seals was common in thirteenth-century England among the social elite and people of lesser status54. Many men who served in high civic offices can be shown to have used two seals over the course of their lives. Richard Renger, mayor of London 1222-7 and 1237-9, for example, used a large ancient cameo featuring a representation of Hercules (ill. 6)55. He also had a smaller seal that incorporated an ancient gem depicting a warrior holding a spear (ill. 7). Two separate impressions of the smaller seal survive56. On one occasion it was used as a counterseal, in opposition to the larger seal, but on the second it was used on its own to validate a deed. Robert Blund and Alan FitzPeter, aldermen c. 1200, each possessed a second seal that incorporated an ancient gem with a legend indicating that it was a ‘secret’ seal (ill. 5)57. One reason for acquiring two seals, as these cases suggest, was to have seals that could serve different functions. Both seals could be used to validate documents (separately or in combination), but the ‘secret’ seal could be used to signal the seal owner’s heightened personal involvement in the process of authentication.

13Some men kept two distinct seals simultaneously, but others probably acquired seals as substitutes or replacements for existing seals. In 1212-1214 William Joiner was using a round seal 35 mm in diameter that displayed a geometric pattern of horizontal zigzaging lines and dots (ill. 8)58. In 1244-1245 he was using a seal 28 mm in diameter that presented a cropped version of the earlier design (ill. 9)59. The second seal was clearly intended to reproduce significant features of the first seal, if not to serve as a copy. Social advancement is another factor which may have promoted the acquisition of new seals. Jordan Goodcheap and Joce Acatur offer examples of men whose second seal is a shield of arms incorporating devices displayed on their first seal. Jordan Goodcheap was sheriff 1283-1284. In Middle English, “good-cheap” meant “good bargain” and the phrase ‘to boot’ had a similar connotation: it could mean “to advantage” or “into the bargain”, as well as a form of foot covering60. A document dated 1283-1284 preserves an impression of a round seal used by Goodcheap that featuring a leg or boot device (ill. 10)61. A document dated 1286-1287 provides an example of the same device presented in the context of an armorial seal (ill. 1l)62. The surviving fragment of Joce Acaturs first seal, dated 1277-1278, is sufficiently large to confirm that it was originally round, approximately 28 mm in diameter featured a long-legged bird as its central image63. In 1286-1287 he was using a seal of the same size and shape but with a design that presented a shield bearing a cross and four cranes (ill. 2)64. As Acatur secured the office of alderman in 1283, it is tempting to interpret his acquisition of a second seal displaying a shield of arms as a response to his enhanced political status. Among the politically prominent men of thirteenth-century London, the ownership of multiple seals during the course of their lives may have been the rule rather than the exception. Simon’s ownership of three seals, therefore, was probably not notable.

14The examination of Simons seals as a group, however, reveals that Simon’s motives for acquiring additional seals differed from those already discerned among his peers. Seals A and B share the boar’s head device, and seal B was combined in a double-sided impression with seal C. There is little to connect seals A and C, however. They are of contrasting sizes and shapes and the central images are different. Moreover, on seal A Simon is described as “Simon son of Walter” and on seal C as “Simon born of Mary”. None of his seals are sufficiently similar in design to be construed as a replacement or substitute seal. Seal A is an armorial seal of a type frequently used by lay members of the upper class. Simon, however, appears to have shifted to favouring seals B and C. Seal B is the smallest and simplest of the three seals. Seal C is also small-scale, but it is finely crafted so even though its imagery is religious rather than military or heraldic, it still advertised Simon’s wealth and importance. Simon does not seem, therefore, to have acquired new seals to claim a higher degree of status. Seals B and C are small enough to serve as counterseals to seal A. Neither B nor C, however, bears a legend that states that it was a “privy” seal. In the only case when Simon is known to have used two seals to authenticate a document, he used seals B and C, with seal C placed on the front face. Thus seal C may have supplanted seal A as Simon’s ‘public’ seal while seal B may have functioned as his “private” or “privy” seal. Simon selected seals whose shapes and images conformed to the types favoured by his colleagues, which indicates that he wanted to present himself as a member of the city’s ruling elite. Simon did, however, seize the opportunity afforded by the possession of several seals to vary their designs and legends. This may reflect changing perceptions of his role and status in civic society.

15There is a pattern to the public image that Simon was presenting in the 1240s. His name, his seals, and his charitable activity, all connected him to the Virgin Mary. Perhaps the most remarkable feature of Simon’s case is his unusual matronymic surname. Most men in thirteenth-century London used surnames that associated them with their fathers, masters, trade, kin or place of origin; among the governing elite the use of two or more aliases was common. Gervase Chamberlain, sheriff 1237-1238, for example, is also known as Gervase Barn and Gervase Cordwainer65. Thomas son of Thomas, mayor 1261-1265, is usually called Thomas son of Thomas in the records, but he is sometimes described as Thomas son of Richard after his grandfather, Richard66. Simon’s use of a number of aliases, therefore, was not notable. His predecessors in the civic government included the sheriffs William FitzIsabel (1193-1194), William FitzAlice (1200-1201), and Martin FitzAlice (1213-1234). Martin Fitz William (sheriff 1225-1226) did on occasion use the alias Martin Fitzlsabel, but matronymics were falling out of use in the early thirteenth century67. To explain why Simon was known by a matronymic, scholars have speculated that Simon’s father was not especially prominent and that Simon therefore became known to his contemporaries by his association with his mother (or grandmother)68. As has already been suggested, there was a Walter of Fulham who was prominent in London in the early thirteenth century, and he provides a plausible candidate for Simon’s father. Moreover, Simon did at one stage in his life use a patronymic and even had it inscribed on a seal. Even if Simon’s father was obscure, it seems unlikely that Simon would have become known by a matronymic, for they were not popular among his contemporaries. In the absence of evidence concerning the identity of his mother and grandmother, it is difficult to discount the possibility that the surname that Simon used from the 1230s onwards was a matronymic. Nonetheless, even if Simon did have a mother (or grandmother) named Mary, that would seem insufficient in itself to explain Simon’s use of her name in his surname.

16Could Simons matronymic name have been connected with his religious devotion? The strongest evidence for Simons personal religious beliefs is provided by his charitable acts. In October 1247, shortly after stepping down as sheriff, Simon gave property on the outskirts of London to the order of St Mary of Bethlehem for the purpose of establishing a new priory69. Simon’s desire to found a new institution, rather than to support an existing one, was an exceptional but not unprecedented gesture. Throughout the thirteenth century, the elite of London proved to be generous supporters of religious and charitable organizations70. However, Vincent notes that there is no evidence that the order of Bethlehem held any property in England prior to 1245; Simon may have been the first man to give them land71. To explain Simon’s decision historians have placed particular emphasis on political factors72. Certainly the appearance of the Bishop of Bethlehem, Goffredo de Prefetti, in England in 1246-1247, and his favourable reception by Henry III, must have contributed to Simon’s decision to favour his religious order73. Indeed, Simon might well have learned of the order from Goffredo, and Henry III may have asked Simon to give his support. Simon, however, also had personal motives. In the foundation charter Simon emphasizes his belief in the crucial role of the virgin birth in the salvation of humankind74. The declaration suggest that he subscribed to the order’s Marian focus and wanted to be identified by his devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

17Further evidence that Simon shaped his identity around Mary can be found in his seals. Simon’s seal C, which dates to no later than 1243-1244 and displays an image of the Virgin Mary, could be explained as a play on Simon’s matronymic surname. Two features of the seal, however, suggest that Simon intended the seal to reflect his self-perception as a man devoted to the Virgin. On the legend of seal B Simon’s relationship with Mary is presented in a conventional matronymic form: “Simon son of Mary”. On seal C, however, Simon is described as “Simon born of Mary”. Thirteenthcentury Londoners conventionally formulated their surnames to express their relationship to their parents using the term filius or filia. Simon’s use of the verb nascor is unusual. Through this choice of language, Simon was perhaps signalling that he was a spiritual child of the Virgin Mary, rather than (or in addition to) the biological son of a woman named Mary. There is also a supplicant man in the bottom left of the image who is depicted on a smaller scale than the Virgin75. It is tempting to view the supplicant as a symbolic representation of Simon.

18The case of Simon FitzMary demonstrates that in the mid-thirteenth century London’s high civic officers were fashioning their identities and that they expressed these identities in a number of ways, including through their seals. The fortunate survival of a chronicle account and records associated with his charitable activities enable historians to situate Simons seals in a broader context and thus to grasp more fully their significance. Simon made Marian devotion a key part of his public identity. He decided to support the church of St Mary of Bethlehem, which had little connection to England but was associated with the Nativity and the Virgin Mary. His matronymic surname called attention to the focus of his piety, and distinguished him from the other men of high social status in the civic government. The unusual legend on seal ‘C’ together with the Marian imagery also situated him as a man of piety. The shapes and devices that Simon chose for his seals, however, were also employed by other London men of high status. Simon, therefore, appears to have struggled with a desire to both differentiate himself from and identify with the other men who dominated the civic government. What is difficult to discern, in the absence of further studies, is whether there was a common pattern to the seals used by the men in the high civic offices in the early to mid-thirteenth century. Simon may have been participating in the process of shaping an identity for London’s emerging ruling group, as well as reacting against his peers.

Illustrations

19Images from the Guildhall Library are reproduced by permission of the Dean and Chapter of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Guildhall Library (CL), City of London Corporation. All other images are courtesy of the National Archives (TNA). Photographs by John McEwan.

Ill. 1 - Seal of Simon FitzMary (A)
Original, Ø 34 x 28 mm GL, MS25121/1070

Ill. 2 - Seal of Simon FitzMary (B)
Original (obverse), Ø 17 mm London, GL, MS25121/214

Ill. 3 - Seal of Simon FitzMary (C)
Original (reverse), Ø 24 x 18 mm London, GL, MS25121/214

Ill. 4 - Seal of Alan FitzPeter (A)
Original (obverse), Ø 37 mm London, TNA E40/6884

Ill. 5 - Seal of Alan FitzPeter (B)
Original (reverse), Ø 16 x 18 mm London, TNA E40/6884

Ill. 6 - Seal of Richard Renger (A)
Original (reverse), Ø 40 (?) x 30 mm London, TNA E40/11002

Ill. 7 - Seal of Richard Renger (B)
Original (obverse), Ø 22 x 19.5 mm London, TNA E40/11002

Ill. 8 - Seal of William Joiner (A)
Original, Ø 35 mm London, GL, MS25121/108

Ill. 9 - Seal of William Joiner (B)
Original, Ø 28 mm London, GL MS25121/542

Ill. 10 - Seal of Jordan Goodcheap (A)
Original, Ø 20 mm London, GL, MS25121/1229

Ill. 11 - Seal of Jordan Goodcheap (B)
Original, Ø 23 x 18 mm London, GL, MS25121/1231

Ill. 12 - Seal of Joce Acatur
Original, Ø 28 mm London, TNA, E329/41